Human Enhancement and Antinatalism: Philosophy as the Art of Living between Pro-extinctionism and Anti-extinctionism

Abstract Philosophy as the art of living has posed the question of the meaning of life, as well as what guarantees happiness. Life should have meaning as well as be happy. The problem addressed herein is the threshold question of whether initiating or continuing life is morally permissible when meaning and well-being are absent or inaccessible. On this view, biomedical enhancement aids meaning and happiness only indirectly – by relieving impairment and expanding capacities it widens opportunities for agent-endorsed goods – so its benefits are conditional and the modification itself is not inherently meaning-conferring. The object of this article is to present philosophy as the art of living, which should look globally at the meaning of human existence in terms of reference to the problem of human extinction and take either an anti-extinction or pro-extinction stance. Human enhancement is definitely an anti-extinction proposition, since it is understood as a prescription for solving at least some of the problems of both the individual human being and humanity as a whole. By contrast, antinatalism, rather than denying life’s meaning, holds that initiating life is presumptively wrong because it nonconsensually exposes future persons to serious, ineliminable risks of suffering. In this article, we discuss and confront these two positions and suggest that, paradoxically, antinatalist philosophy has a strong rationale for being understood as an art of living that exposes the inadequacy of human enhancement. The challenge, however, remains whether antinatalist philosophy, which represents a pro-extinction position, can function as an art of living in a broader, non-philosophical context. Our comparative claim does not presuppose a general mandate to minimize suffering. It rests on a non-aggregative, imposition-based permission condition for initiating life, together with asymmetric error-costs and option value under deep uncertainty.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Philosophia
Published
2025-12-04
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-025-00935-5
Primary Topic
Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Human Enhancement and Antinatalism: Philosophy as the Art of Living between Pro-extinctionism and Anti-extinctionism

Konrad Szocik
Philosophia
Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations
article

Human Enhancement and Antinatalism: Philosophy as the Art of Living between Pro-extinctionism and Anti-extinctionism

Konrad Szocik
article en

Abstract

Abstract Philosophy as the art of living has posed the question of the meaning of life, as well as what guarantees happiness. Life should have meaning as well as be happy. The problem addressed herein is the threshold question of whether initiating or continuing life is morally permissible when meaning and well-being are absent or inaccessible. On this view, biomedical enhancement aids meaning and happiness only indirectly – by relieving impairment and expanding capacities it widens opportunities for agent-endorsed goods – so its benefits are conditional and the modification itself is not inherently meaning-conferring. The object of this article is to present philosophy as the art of living, which should look globally at the meaning of human existence in terms of reference to the problem of human extinction and take either an anti-extinction or pro-extinction stance. Human enhancement is definitely an anti-extinction proposition, since it is understood as a prescription for solving at least some of the problems of both the individual human being and humanity as a whole. By contrast, antinatalism, rather than denying life’s meaning, holds that initiating life is presumptively wrong because it nonconsensually exposes future persons to serious, ineliminable risks of suffering. In this article, we discuss and confront these two positions and suggest that, paradoxically, antinatalist philosophy has a strong rationale for being understood as an art of living that exposes the inadequacy of human enhancement. The challenge, however, remains whether antinatalist philosophy, which represents a pro-extinction position, can function as an art of living in a broader, non-philosophical context. Our comparative claim does not presuppose a general mandate to minimize suffering. It rests on a non-aggregative, imposition-based permission condition for initiating life, together with asymmetric error-costs and option value under deep uncertainty.

Philosophia
University of Information Technology and Management in Rzeszow (PL)
Openalex Percentile: Top 61%
Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Human Enhancement and Antinatalism: Philosophy as the Art of Living between Pro-extinctionism and Anti-extinctionism — Konrad Szocik · Philosophia (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS